Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet

Filing 60

JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 14 days, filed by Plaintiff Courthouse News Service.. (Fetterly, Jonathan)

1 Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm (SBN 195492)
[e-mail]
2 Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
[e-mail]
3 BRYAN CAVE LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
4 San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Telephone: [phone]
5 Facsimile: [phone]

BRYAN CAVE LLP
560 MISSION STREET, 25TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2994

6 Jonathan G. Fetterly (SBN 228612)
[e-mail]
7 BRYAN CAVE LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
8 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Telephone: [phone]
9 Facsimile: [phone]
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
13
14
15 Courthouse News Service,

Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

16

JOINT REPORT OF EARLY
MEETING OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff,

17

vs.

18 Michael Planet, in his official capacity as
Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
19 Ventura County Superior Court,
20

[Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(f)]
Hon. Manuel L. Real

Defendant.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joint Report of Early Meeting of Counsel
1039691.1

Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

On June 5, 2014, the conference of counsel took place in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Local Rule 26, and this Court’s Order Re:
Notice to Counsel. The following counsel participated in the conference: Rachel
Matteo-Boehm, and Jonathan Fetterly of Bryan Cave LLP, counsel for Plaintiff
Courthouse News Service (“Plaintiff” or “Courthouse News”); and Robert Naeve of
Jones Day, counsel for Defendant Michael Planet (“Defendant” or “Planet”).
I.

8
9

BRYAN CAVE LLP
560 MISSION STREET, 25TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2994

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Courthouse News commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on September 29,
2011, alleging that Defendant’s policy of delays in granting media access to civil
unlimited jurisdiction complaints filed with the Ventura County Superior Court are
the substantive equivalent of access denials and violated the First Amendment right
of access to court records, as well as the common law right of access and California
Rule of Court 2.550. Plaintiff’s complaint included three counts: (1) violation of
U.S. Const. Amend. I and 42 U.S.C. §1983; (2) violation of federal common law
and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) violation of California Rule of Court 2.550. Plaintiff
filed its First Amended Complaint on June 3, 2014, which eliminated the second and
third counts

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Nature of Claims and Defenses:

Defendant is preparing a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim. Defendant denies all of the allegations in Plaintiff’s
amended complaint, and particularly denies that it has a “policy” of delaying access
to newly filed complaints, or that Plaintiff has been denied access to these
complaints.
II.

Initial Disclosures: The parties shall exchange initial disclosures on or before

June 19, 2014, by serving them pursuant to means authorized by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

26
27
28
1
Joint Report of Early Meeting of Counsel
1039691.1

Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

III.

2
3
4

The parties have discussed preservation of discoverable information. Neither
party currently anticipates any issues about preserving discoverable information.
IV.

5

(a)

1.

BRYAN CAVE LLP
560 MISSION STREET, 25TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2994

(d)

(e)

20
21

production consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable case
law.
(f)

attorney-client communications after the date of commencement of this litigation do
not need to be included in any privilege logs.
(g)

IV.

25

27

Changes to limitations on discovery – None sought at this time.

(h)

23

26

Issues relating to privilege – The Parties are not currently aware of any

unique issues relating to privilege. Plaintiff proposes the Parties stipulate that any

22

24

Electronically stored information – Where electronically stored

information is requested, the parties will comply with the rules for electronic

18
19

Phased discovery – The parties do not believe discovery should be

conducted in phases or otherwise focused or limited.

14

17

Discovery completion – The parties propose fact discovery should be

completed by April 6, 2015.

12

16

The denials and defenses asserted in Defendant’s answer.

(c)

10

15

The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint.

2.

9

13

Discovery subjects – Discovery will be needed in the following subject

areas:

8

11

Discovery Plan:
The parties agree to the following discovery plan:

6
7

Preservation of Discoverable Information:

Other orders requested from court – None requested.

Local Rule 26-1 Requirements:
(a)

Complex Cases – The parties do not believe that this is a complex case

or that this case warrants reference to the procedures set forth in the Manual on
Complex Litigation.

28
2
Joint Report of Early Meeting of Counsel
1039691.1

Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

(b)

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and possibly
additional motions in response to the Amended Complaint, the response to which is
due on June 24, 2014. The parties discussed the need for a briefing schedule and
hearing date that takes into account previously-planned summer vacations and the
resulting unavailability of Plaintiff and its counsel. Specifically, Plaintiff’s CEO
and owner, Bill Girdner, is currently out of the country on vacation until July 1,
2014, and Plaintiff’s lead counsel, Rachel Matteo-Boehm, will be out of state on a
pre-paid family vacation July 5-13, 2014.

BRYAN CAVE LLP
560 MISSION STREET, 25TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2994

10
11
12

The parties propose the cut-off for hearing any dispositive motion be May 18,
2015. This deadline contemplates any such motions be filed and served prior to the
hearing date to allow for sufficient notice pursuant to local and federal rules.

13
14

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

20

22
23

26
27

Expert witnesses –

Plaintiff’s Proposal: Plaintiff proposes the discovery cut-off for expert
witnesses shall be April 6, 2015, and that the parties shall disclose expert witnesses
they intend to use at trial pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) at least 90 days before
that date.

24
25

Additional parties – The parties do not currently anticipate that any

additional parties will be added to this lawsuit.

19

21

Trial estimate – The parties estimate trial will last approximately 14

days.

17
18

ADR – This requirement is waived per the Court’s Order re Notice to

Counsel.

15
16

Motion schedule – Defendant anticipates filing a motion to dismiss

Defendant’s Proposal: Defendant proposes the parties shall disclose the
expert witnesses they intend to use at trial according to the time established by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D), and that the discovery cut-off for expert witnesses shall be 45
days before the date set for trial.

28
3
Joint Report of Early Meeting of Counsel
1039691.1

Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

V.

2

Proposed Trial Date
The parties propose the following dates:

3

 Trial: July 21, 2015

4

 Final Pre-Trial Conference: July 13, 2015

5
6 Dated: June 19, 2014
7
8

BRYAN CAVE LLP
Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm
Jonathan G. Fetterly
Leila C. Knox

9

By:

BRYAN CAVE LLP
560 MISSION STREET, 25TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2994

10
11

/s/ Jonathan G. Fetterly___
Jonathan G. Fetterly
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE

12
13
14
15 Dated: June 19, 2014

JONES DAY
Robert Naeve

16
17

By:

18
19
20

/s/ Robert Naeve
Robert Naeve
Attorneys for Defendant
MICHAEL PLANET, in his official
capacity as Court Executive
Officer/Clerk of the Ventura County
Superior Court

21
22
23
24
25

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-4.3.4(a)(2)(i), the filer, Jonathan G. Fetterly, attests that all
other signatories listed, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the
filing’s content and have authorized the filing.

26
27
28
4
Joint Report of Early Meeting of Counsel
1039691.1

Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)